Final Neolithic Crete and the Southeast Aegean () || Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks

Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks

After my presentation of evidence regarding settlement change, but also other aspects of mate-rial culture, and social and economic development in Crete, it becomes apparent that the key “moment” of the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age started somewhere in the late first half of the fourth millennium BC, probably between 3700 and 3500 BC, when the inhabit-ants of the Mesara moved their habitation places to hilltops, such as those of Faistos and Gortina. That the phenomenon was not restricted to the Mesara only was recently proved by excavations at Katalimata and Azoria in the Ierapetra Isthmus, and by the discovery of several sites on the south-ern coast near Anatoli, and on the northern coast above Chersonisos and Malia. The first phase of these changes involved the collapse of the earlier LN settlement system (or at least part of it) and relocation to defensible places, most probably under conditions of serious threat from beyond the island. The latter hypothesis is made on the basis of the regional organization of the new settle-ment system and the development of settlement during this and the succeeding periods. The fact that no settlement changes have been recorded at Knossos itself does not contradict the hypoth-esis,1 considering the similarly “passive” responses of this site to disturbances in later periods. The continuing occupation of the Knossos region through LN and FN may have been due to the sizeable local population which considerably outnumbered those of other Cretan regions. Too little is known, however, about the settlement pattern during this time in the Knossos region as a whole (between Rogdia to the northwest, Amnissos to the northeast and Iouktas to the south) to give a full and reliable explanation of the differences between it and other parts of Crete.

The beginning of the process of relocation to defensible places marks, in my opinion, such an important historical event that this should be chosen as the beginning of a new chronological period (here called Final Neolithic). It is more important than previous minor and gradual changes in pottery production, which were not accompanied by other significant developments, in latest Neolithic communities.

If the foundation of the sites like Faistos, Gortina, Katalimata and Azoria is accepted as the beginning of the Final Neolithic period, then the succeeding appearance of a large number of new settlements, of new settlement patterns, and of new pottery assemblages, should be seen as the transition between the early Final Neolithic (here FN I) and late Final Neolithic (here FN II), ten-tatively dated to about 3400/3300 BC.2 The few centuries of FN II and the first century of EB I (ca. 3400/3300–3000 BC) were a time of unprecedented changes in settlement patterns, social organ-ization, and almost every aspect of material culture – particularly in architecture, and in pottery production and metal technology.3 The new complexity of settlement patterns indicates either that extraordinary social and economic developments occurred from indigenous roots within the Cretan population or that new and more advanced groups of people moved into the island. However poor architectural remains are, they show entirely new elements, such as defensive enclosures made of large boulders, and well defined clusters of houses built in a compact way within settlements housing more than a few families. The FN II period introduced, for the first time in Crete, a type of village that was more or less permanently attached to a particular territory, with a level of con-tinuity in occupation unknown before, except at the largest settlements of Knossos and Faistos. In many regions it was the FN II settlement pattern which laid the foundation for the EB I–EB II territorial organization of Crete, by establishing the main regional population centres and drawing the borders of their economic hinterlands. From that point onwards, the major settlements either continued without any interruption through EM I and EM II at the same locations (as in the cases

1 Tomkins 2008, 38.2 Nowicki 2003, 65, Tab. 2.3 Papadatos 2007.

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/7/14 8:52 PM

370 Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks

of Palaikastro Kastri and Kato Zakros), or were moved a short distance from a more to a less defen-sible place (the case of Vasiliki Kefala and Kefali) during the EM I period. Medium-sized and large settlements (over 3000 and over 8000 m2) were founded for the first time in almost every part of the island where settlers might find resources (enough arable land, adequate pasturage and/or favorable conditions for materials processing) to support permanent habitation. In cases where the initial FN II settlement proved too populous for its hinterland, it quickly declined and was replaced by a series of smaller sites better fitted to economic potential of the region.

The definition of the Final Neolithic period in this book tries to reflect “historical” aspects of the changes in the Aegean. The Cretan Final Neolithic consists of two clearly differentiated phases: early and late; these phases are probably reflected by two strata at Faistos (Faistos I and II), separated by a layer of stones.4 The early phase shows the final decline of the earlier Neolithic society, whereas the later one foreshadows the emergence of the Early Bronze Age civilization. If Tomkins’ alternative (mainly pottery-style-based) definition of the period in question is accepted with the Final Neolithic lasting about 1500 years, then it must be divided into three phases: 1) early (Tomkins’ FN Ia, Ib, and part of FN II), 2) middle (part of Tomkins’ FN II and FN III), and 3) late (Tomkins’ FN IV). On the basis of the analysis and discussion presented in this book I do not think that Tomkins’ early phase should be separated from the Cretan LN and included in the “histori-cally” defined Final Neolithic period as outlined above. Coordination with this controversial term as it has been applied to the archaeology of the Greek mainland does not seem to me an appropriate justification.

The distinction between two phases of the Final Neolithic period, represented by the sites of FN I and FN II groups, has a crucial significance for the understanding the nature of the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Crete. This distinction is very clear in some regions (East Siteia, the Mirabello and Ierapetra Isthmus), but less so in other (the Mesara). The first FN phase in Faistos (Faistos I) shows some unique pottery characteristics, which were not paralleled at Gortina (though both sites’ foundation must be dated to the early FN phase), or elsewhere in Crete, apart perhaps from Kommos.5 In the Mesara the “mixed” character of FN I and FN II may suggest more interaction between different groups, whereas the very homogenous character of the FN II sites in the East Siteia Peninsula indicates a sharp separation and lack of links between FN I and FN II. Explanation of these differences in terms of continuity (or discontinuity) between FN I and FN II, in various regions of Crete, is difficult due to the very limited evidence from excavated sites. The problem of the FN I “indigenous” population versus FN II “newcomers” is more complicated by the fact that the FN II groups are not homogenous either. The individual FN II pottery groups (for example, the Red Ware and the Calcite-Tempered groups) in Crete show, on one hand, substantial differences among themselves, and on the other hand, striking similarities to some pottery groups from beyond Crete (the Red Ware has links to pottery from the southern Dodecanese and Lycia; the Calcite-Tempered group resembles pottery from the Cyclades). Whether the different pottery groups represent different origins for FN II people in Crete is uncertain, but such a hypothesis should be at least considered and examined, especially in relation to pottery from southwest Anatolia.

On the basis of all available evidence it can certainly be concluded that contacts between the eastern edge of the Aegean – i.e. the very western part of Anatolia – and the Aegean islands inten-sified in the early fourth millennium: the long-lasting Neolithic “isolation” of Crete was coming to its end.6 Was this new development stimulated by more frequent, but peaceful contacts between the native Neolithic population of Crete, the Dodecanese and the Cyclades, and the more advanced (Chalcolithic) groups of Anatolian people, sitting at the western edge of the Near Eastern civi-lizations? Were these contacts based only on an exchange of goods and raw materials between

4 According to Todaro this layer marked probably the leveling of the settlement of Faistos I, Todaro 2013, 164.5 Simona Todaro personal communications.6 Vagnetti 1996, 39.



Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks 371

the regions, led by demand on one or both sides? Were these contacts followed by some modest exchange of people and ideas between the regions? In other words, was the opening of the Aegean islands to the world east of them of a gradual and peaceful character, based on mutual benefit, or was it the consequence of population pressure within Anatolia followed by the migration of numer-ous groups of people to the west, across the Aegean Sea?

The material presented in this book, when analysed together, suggests strongly that the speed-ing up of processes responsible for settlement change, and leading to the transition of the local Neolithic Cretan communities to the Bronze Age, was probably caused by the large scale movement of people from the east – though this was not a single event involving one single group of immi-grants. The process must have started already in FN I, as suggested by the relocation of settlements to defensible locations in the Mesara and Ierapetra Isthmus. However, the evidence for new cul-tural and social features in Crete during that period is scarce and ambiguous. The FN I “refugees” of Azoria and Monastiraki Katalimata do not have yet well-identified contemporary “foreign” enemies on Crete, though some pre-FN II finds on Koufonisi and Gaidouronisi – as well as pottery of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group on these two little islands and on Crete itself – may indicate the early presence of such people around Crete. It is worth reminding that similar evidence is more abundant on Karpathos, where it is also of a non-indigenous origin.

The situation changed dramatically, however, at the beginning of the FN II period, with an “explosion” of settlement that brought to Crete new elements of social and territorial organiza-tion, architecture, pottery and metallurgy. Many innovations regarding the latter elements of mate-rial culture can be observed at the same time, or even somewhat earlier, on other Aegean islands, including the Dodecanese and the Cyclades. Comparisons between Crete, the Dodecanese and the Cyclades during the fourth millennium BC are still difficult due to numerous problems regarding the sequence of the Cycladic pottery groups, the duration of the archaeological “cultures” identified in the region, and relationship between them.7 New excavations followed by detailed presentation of the material, such as recently published by F. Mavridis, are very helpful in sorting out some of these problems,8 but more cooperative field work between teams investigating individual islands is needed to built up a better synchronism between particular sites and so-called archaeological “cul-tures.” Notwithstanding, addressing the area in this book is unavoidable since it constitutes part of the same historical arena as Crete and the southeast Aegean islands. The changes of settlement locations seen in the Cyclades in the fourth millennium BC, similar to those recorded in Crete, can be linked to the origins of the Cycladic Bronze Age. In chronological terms, the Cretan Final Neo-lithic must be seen as post-Saliagos – more or less contemporary with the assemblages described as of the Cycladic Attica–Kefala and Grotta–Pelos groups, with the former partly, but not entirely overlapping FN I and perhaps early FN II, and the latter partly contemporary with the FN II and the earliest EM I periods. In the Cyclades, as in Crete, changes in settlement patterns were also associ-ated with new social organisation, as represented by very extensive and defensive settlements, new technology, as represented by changes in pottery manufacturing and expanding metallurgy, and new attitudes to land and its ownership, as represented by continuing occupation of some of the sites founded at the end of the fourth millennium (e.g. Phylakopi on Melos, Markiani on Amorgos, and Agia Irini on Keos). Strofilas on Andros,9 Spatha Zagani in Attica, Paoura on Keos,10 and Kou-kounaries on Paros11 are just a few other sites related to the phenomenon of instability caused by substantial movements of people in the Aegean in the second half of the fourth millennium BC. The defensibility of many sites and the remains of defensive constructions, not only in Crete, but also in

7 Mavridis 2010, 38 and 39.8 Mavridis 2010.9 Televantou 2008.10 Whitlaw 1991.11 Katsarou-Tzevelaki and Schilardi 2008.




the Dodecanese and the Cyclades, supports the hypothesis that migrations were accompanied by violence and resistance. Phylakopi can be seen as a good parallel to Mochlos on Crete in terms of the settlements’ location and their later history. Strofilas on Andros, however, with its impressive fortification, is closer to Zagani in Attica, and to northwest Anatolian EB I sites, than to any of the Cretan fortified sites. The distribution of certain pottery wares (grey incised), fabric groups (Marble Ware) and shapes (rolled-rim bowls) is important, with the Cyclades showing more links with the northwestern Anatolia, and Crete having more “flavour” of the southwest and south Anatolian groups (especially in the Red Ware).

The late fourth millennium BC migration scenario has been recently supported by the DNA research on the Near Eastern and Greek population during the Neolithic that indicates a significant influx of the Anatolian population in Crete around 3100 BC.12 The evidence analysed in this book indicates that migration processes started earlier than proposed hitherto,13 not at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, but in the FN I period (the late first half of the fourth millennium BC), and culminated during the FN II/LN IIb period (in the second half of the fourth millennium BC).

In Crete, the most important change between FN I and FN II is a very different territorial organ-ization of settlement, with much concern shown over the demarcation and protection of the land owned by an individual group of people. This new settlement organization indicates the existence of communities considerably larger than before, occupying several settlements and hamlets or iso-lated farmsteads. Nothing similar has so far been recorded in the LN and FN I period in Crete. It is tempting, therefore, to speculate that the idea of an FN II territory, exploited by a community larger than a single settlement, was brought to Crete by the FN II settlers from the regions with more developed social structures and a territorial organization.

Even if some social complexity existed in the largest LN and FN I settlements, namely Knossos and Faistos, it is not attested during the FN I period in other regions of Crete which became the main FN II and EM I population centres. If these new FN II provincial “territories” were the result of so-called “marginal colonization”, as Tomkins recently proposed,14 Knossos and Faistos (or north-central Crete and the Mesara) would have to have had an enormous social and economic potential to be able to colonize so many regions, with so many new settlers, so quickly (within 200 to 300 years) involving the introduction of a new kind of settlement organization and specific new architectural features. It does not seem plausible at least in the case of Faistos and the Mesara. In the Mesara region, FN I Faistos looks culturally somewhat isolated and apparently very different from those of FN II date in the East Siteia Peninsula and the Plakias region, two parts of Crete where the “colonization” process is best visible. The “marginal colonization” theory for FN II settle-ment expansion in Crete is additionally contradicted by the appearance of new settlement patterns throughout Crete, and by the topography of individual sites in both the FN I and FN II periods – problems which were not taken into consideration by Tomkins, and which have been discussed already in Chapter 6. Contrary to Tomkins’ statement,15 the FN I movement to defensible locations indicates hostility coming from beyond Crete and not “intensifying local competition … between sites”. Topographic characteristics indicate clearly that Katalimata, Azoria, and Pano Chorio did not compete between themselves. Pandotinou Korifi and the site above Chersonisos (Site 111) do not signify retreat in the face of local inter-community competition. The FN I shift to defensible locations cannot be explained as a process initiating “marginal colonization”, nor as the response of local people to intruders from central Crete. The presence of a great number of contemporary defensive settlements in the Dodecanese and on the southwestern coast of Anatolia indicates that insecurity was a general problem throughout the southern Aegean.

12 King et al. 2008.13 See for example Hood 1990a, Hood 1990b, Warren 1973.14 Tomkins 2008, 38.15 Tomkins 2008, 38.




The adoption of defensible locations is complex and cannot be interpreted on the basis of a few excavated sites: we must consider it against the broader settlement background of the Aegean. The notion of local competition as the reason for defensibility in the FN I period is also contradicted by evidence from the Dodecanese which experienced similar settlement phenomena during the fourth millennium BC. Should we speculate that the islands east of Crete were affected by “marginal colo-nization” coming from Crete, as well? The LN II (Cretan FN) population boom in the Dodecanese is matched by settlement changes during LCh and the beginning of EBA along the southwestern and western coast of Anatolia, especially well visible in the Bozburun and Reshadiye peninsulas. The relocation to hilltop sites here started well before the FN I relocation and FN II settlement expan-sion in Crete.

When looking for the reasons which led to a sudden population increase, accompanied by a substantial rearrangement of settlement organization, during the short FN II period, the evidence reviewed can neither be limited to one area (Knossos or Faistos), to one island (Crete), or one cate-gory of finds (mainly pottery). The second half of the fourth millennium BC brought changes almost everywhere in the eastern Mediterranean,16 as well as in other parts of Europe17 and the Near East.18 Often the changes were of an abrupt and probably also of violent character. It remains an open question whether the changes in the Aegean had their own individual background or were part of a chain initiated somewhere else, far beyond this region.

The gradual changes which can be observed in the Aegean through most of the fourth mil-lennium indicate that the process lasted at least several centuries (probably more than a half of millennium) and was building up its momentum. The interaction between insular Aegean people, in particular the Neolithic Cretans, and the people on the eastern margins of their world, clearly entered a new and dramatic phase somewhere in the late first half of the fourth millennium, but to put an exact date on it would be risky. Better chronological coordination of the new settlement patterns in Crete and the settlement changes in the Dodecanese might help, but there are no relia-ble absolute dates for either region. At present the most plausible moment for change can be linked to the foundation of settlements on the palatial hill of Faistos, on the Gortina acropolis hill, on Azoria, and on the Katalimata ledges. At Knossos, the continuation of occupation on Kefala, and the absence of defensible FN sites around it, cannot be used on their own as an argument against an “exogenous and hostile influx of population at this time”.19 One has to remember that Knossos (probably due to its region’s population size) responded to disturbances and insecurity through the entire Bronze Age in a way different from the rest of Crete, even during the “darkest” LM IIIC period.20

The newcomers probably arrived in Crete as the result of large scale migratory processes which started early in the fourth millennium BC on the eastern edge of the Aegean, or even more to the east, in western and southwestern Anatolia, and caused a general shift by the indigenous Neolithic Cretans to defensible settlements already in FN I. The intensification of settlement by the new-comers during the FN II should be placed around 3400/3300 BC. This was probably preceded by a period of less intensive (but nevertheless harmful) raids and reconnaissance types of visit.

The most disputable is the first phase of this process, more or less contemporary with the FN I period as defined in this book (ca. 3700/3600–3400/3300 BC). If the two general groups of pottery, classified as FN I and FN II are indeed chronologically distinctive, the defensible FN I sites do not have culturally identifiable “enemies” who can be seen as responsible for this dramatic settlement change. However, as discussed before, there is a possibility that these two pottery/cultural groups

16 For the nature of these changes in Anatolia see Yakar 1985, 29–40.17 Whittle 1996, 126; Sherrat 2001, 184–187.18 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 190–210; Midant-Reynes 2000, 53, 61–67.19 Tomkins 2008, 38.20 Nowicki 2000, 223.




were partly contemporary. Thanks to the lack of evidence it is impossible to speculate how long this overlap lasted for. One generation seems to be a reasonable hypothesis, but in some areas it could be considerably longer. The process of relocation of settlements to high defensible places in the FN I period preceded, but probably not very long, the appearance of a large number of new FN II settlements all over Crete, especially along the coast, from the Palaikastro and Zakros bays on the east, to the coastal plains of Palaiochora and Falasarna on the west. If the FN I period is indeed very short, then the FN II period should be extended backwards for another hundred years or more (3500/3400BC?).

Now we should address the question of who were the people responsible for all the dramatic changes in settlement pattern during the FN I and FN II periods. It would be unjustified to deny any role in these processes to the native inhabitants of Crete and other Aegean islands. It would also, however, run against all the evidence analysed in this book to see the native population of the Aegean island as being a driving force for the transition to the Bronze Age. The changes were too fast, they concerned too many aspects of social and economic life and they happened at the same time as, or soon after, substantial changes in western Anatolia. Additionally, the changes were associated with serious concerns about security – a strong indication of conflicts between different groups of people, which is in turn a phenomenon often related to migrations. The native population’s involvement may have varied in different parts of the Aegean. In Crete it was proba-bly strongest in areas densely inhabited during the LN period, such as the northern coast in the Knossos–Amnissos region, and in the Mesara. It was probably insignificant in the East Siteia Pen-isula and on the southern coast of the Rethymnon Isthmus. The indigenous Neolithic population of Crete was not exterminated by the more advanced immigrants from the east, but the conflicts between different groups (and also between newcomers) were frequent, and threatened many com-munities, to a much higher degree than was the case before the FN period.

The location of an FN I settlement on the cliff of the Cha Gorge at Katalimata is the best illus-tration of the threat felt by the native Cretans. The newcomers, who settled in the coastal areas, in particular along the eastern and southern coasts, did not feel safe either and looked for defen-sible promontories or rocky “acropoleis” above coastal plains and bays. Very similar settlement locations were preferred in the LN II period in the Dodecanese and, in the late phases of the Late Chalcolithic, on the Anatolian coast. Assuming that this Dodecanesian and Anatolian “defensive” settlement pattern is earlier than FN II in Crete (the hypothesis supported by pottery characteristics and the identified sequence of settlement changes in both the areas) it is plausible that the growing insecurity in the eastern part of the Aegean during the Cretan pre-FN II period were linked to settle-ment changes during the Cretan FN I period. The two groups of sites in Crete, FN I and FN II, may represent two stages in a continuous historical process of conflict between the local Cretan Neo-lithic population and their Chalcolithic neighbours coming from the East. The latter represented groups of several different origins, but all of them must have good sailing skills and long experi-ence of sea exploitation. A strong sea-orientation among a very substantial part of the Cretan FN II (but not FN I) population is a new feature in Crete in the fourth millennium BC.

The archaeological evidence presented above supports Peter Warren’s earlier hypothesis of “some movement of people into Crete from west Anatolian region to join the Late Neolithic popu-lation at the end of the fourth millennium and beginning of the third”,21 and Sinclair Hood’s idea that “Early Minoan IA reflected the coming of immigrants”.22 Now, these hypotheses can be better located in chronological terms and are better supported by archaeological evidence. Some key questions, however, remain unanswered. Among them are the origins of several striking elements of material culture, with few or no direct parallels in the immediate neighbourhood of Crete, which appeared in Crete suddenly at the very beginning of the EB I period. These are: 1) dark-on-light

21 Warren 1973, 43; see also Warren 2000, 86.22 Hood 1990, 368.




linear painted pottery, 2) pithoi with a characteristic relief decoration (the Afroditi Kefali type), and 3) stone built communal tholos tombs.

S. Hood pointed to the Levant as a plausible origin-place of the EM I dark-on-light painted pottery.23 B. Koehl has recently proposed a more controversial hypothesis, of links between the latest FN/EM I inhabitants of the Mesara and the Chalcolithic Ghassulian culture of the southern Levant.24 However, Koehl’s interpretation of the migration process into Crete, though generally in line with the reconstruction proposed in this book, in detail fails to be supported by evidence. The immigration scenario was more complex than that proposed by Koehl (who reconstructs groups of Cycladic people coming to the Siteia coast, western Anatolians settling in central Crete, and Levan-tine immigrants in the Mesara), and the picture becomes less clear once we analyse individual regions and sites. The distribution of tholos tombs in early EM I is not limited to the Mesara, but covered some pockets in the very eastern part of Crete as well, as for example in Livari and near Papadiokampos.25 Pithoi with relief decoration, one of the strongest hypothetical links between Crete and the Ghassulians, are especially numerous in northeastern Crete, between Palaikastro and the Ierapetra Isthmus, but not always in areas with tholos tombs, so they cannot be treated as representing the same “cultural packet”. It is true that the closest (though not very close) parallels to the EM I dark-on-light painted pottery are in the Levant or southeastern Cilicia, but the distance between Crete and that region is very far, and with a long section of the Anatolian coast and Cyprus, in between, inhabited by other groups of people, so far without any evidence of similar connec-tions. The hypothesis of a Levantine origin for some EM I immigrants is intriguing, but at present difficult to defend. If true, it would probably indicate smaller and mobile groups of migrants, trav-elling over very long distances and mixing on their way with other people. During such journeys, the hypothetical Levantine groups would have to abandon much of their former customs and ele-ments of material culture, in a process of adaptation to the culture(s) of people they mixed with, but preserving a few, especially important and attractive. Such a scenario, however, requires better support from archaeological evidence. Another hypothesis must be also considered: that some of the aforementioned elements (painted pottery, pithoi, communal tombs) may indeed have been of Levantine origin, but were imported to Crete indirectly by south Anatolian people (from Lycia and possibly Cilicia), who were earlier in contact with the Levant. All these hypotheses, however, are very speculative and should be examined in the context of archaeological material excavated from the Anatolian coast between the Xanthos River and the Cilician plain.

Recently, S. Hood and G. Cadogan have revisited the idea of immigration as the main factor behind FN II (FN IV) and EM I cultural changes,26 maintaining Hood’s earlier hypothesis – that the crucial changes took place at the beginning of the Bronze Age (ca. 3100–3000 BC).27 However, an important new element has been missed that is relevant to discussion on the issue – current archae-ological evidence indicates that major changes in settlement patterns and social development took place between FN I and FN II (ca. 3400/3300), and not between FN II and EM I.28 The analysis of settlement pattern is absolutely essential for further discussion of hypothetical migrations to Crete in the late fourth millennium BC: evidence used in arguments should not be restricted to pottery. The changes between FN II and EM I mentioned by Hood and Cadogan, are indeed important, and could represent the arrival of new groups of people following FN II predecessors, but they are only the last act in the process of colonization, consolidation and development of the FN II commu-nities, which appeared in hundreds of new sites all over Crete and the other Aegean islands. The

23 Hood 1990.24 Koehl 2013, 245.25 Papadatos and Sofianou 2013.26 Hood and Cadogan 2011, 284–285.27 Hood 1990a, 1990b.28 Nowicki 2003, 66–72; Nowicki 2008a, especially 226; see also remarks on this problem in Blackman and Branigan 1977, 67.




transition between FN II and EM I, despite some new elements in pottery production, architecture, and metallurgy, was less dramatic than the transition between FN I and II, which shook the entire settlement organization of the island. Within the FN II period we can differentiate sites, with some lacking any proto-EM I characteristics (e.g. Palaikastro Petsofas) and others already including some EB I pottery elements (e.g. Dermatos Kastrokefala). The same pattern can be reconstructed in the Dodecanese. In respect of settlement, the EM I early communities simply continued the earlier FN II pattern, with only minor alterations to it. These EM I alterations were regionally variable and related to the geographical position of sites within specific territories; they included dispersal (more sites of class D appear) as well as nucleation around the main centre of a territory (class B1 or A), but territories themselves seem to have been already well defined along the borders drawn during the FN II period. Missing this key point in the archaeology of Crete considerably weakens the arguments for migrations as a decisive element in the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Crete.

FN II settlement organization, very different from that of the FN I period, seems more likely to have been brought by new people than developed by the local inhabitants, who did not show signs of significant social organization and territorial attachment (apart from at Knossos and Faistos) before FN II. Most of the FN II settlements are new foundations, without any earlier FN I roots. Those few which do have them (e.g. Petras Kefala, Vainia Stavromenos, and Viran Episkopi) require individual explanations. The links between settlement patterns of the FN I and FN II periods (apart from the general defensible characteristics of habitation sites) are weak and limited to a few sites. This is in a sharp contrast to the aforementioned strong links between the FN II and EM I early settlement patterns. Another argument for the hypothesis that overseas newcomers were respon-sible for the new settlement organization is the fact that many “territories” and their borders were organized around coastal centres, located at or near natural harbours. The best evidence of these “newcomers” is provided by the newly founded FN II sites in the East Siteia Peninsula, the Ierape-tra Isthmus, the bay of Plakias, and along the western coast. Comparisons between these regions show some differences between the FN II groups which did not result from their adaptation to the local environmental conditions, but were part of their past experience and culture. It would be naïve to look for a single origin point of these peoples and for one “event” type of invasion. The different cultural and geographical origins of the newcomers may be reflected by some regional variation in pottery fabric groups and in chipped stone industries, especially between the northern and southern coasts of Crete. The northern coast interacted more with groups which appeared at the same time in the Cyclades, whereas the eastern and southern coast shows more similarities to the southern Dodecanese and southern Anatolia, especially Lycia.

The FN II settlement organization demonstrates the existence of much more developed social structures and the first clear signs of well-defined and -controlled territorial boundaries between neighbouring communities. The latter consisted of several settlements, hamlets, and occasionally individual houses, and occupied geographically differentiated areas. This territorial partition of Crete is best visible in the regions with dense FN II occupation, where the competition for land and other natural resources must have been a major problem. A high level of coordination was needed to set up such a complex settlement pattern, with specialized functions given to some sites, e.g, as “look-out” and “border” sites. The further development of this FN II territorial system is well evidenced during the early EM I period when specialized sites became more complex (e.g. Afroditi Kefali)29 and “territorial attachment” became represented through a new feature (or at least one visible for the first time) – communal tombs with long-lasting use. The construction of sophisti-cated, almost monumental tholos tombs indicates a close (perhaps more ideological than practi-cal) collaboration between members of the community – a phenomenon unknown during the FN I period, and just emerging in the FN II period. Foundations of communal tombs definitely mark the

29 Betancourt 2013.




end of the uncertainty, temporality, and instability in some regions which had been still visible in the FN II and the earliest EM I settlement pattern.

An element of continuity between these last Neolithic people on the part of their Bronze Age descendants is seen in the location of EB cemeteries and/or communal tombs at or besides remains of FN II and earliest EM I date. The cemeteries at Petras Kefala, Mochlos, Gournia Sfoungaras, and Agia Kyriaki,30 show the almost immediate replacement of a habitation site with a burial ground. Another, considerably later (about 800–1000 years), revival of this special respect to the ancestors is even more interesting. It dates to the MM period when Crete was covered with a large number of cult places on hilltops and mountainous peaks – so called peak sanctuaries. Though the latter were founded in general on the summits of mountains dominating the regional landscape, and thus their location might theoretically replicate those of the FN or EM I hilltop settlements by chance, there are some facts which indicate that often this did not occur by chance. This conclusion is sup-ported by an as yet only superficially recognized type of MM sites with surface material similar to, but not identical with that of proper peak sanctuaries, at or very near FN or EM I sites (without any continuation between these two periods). To this type may belong Ziros Rizoviglo (Site 56), Xero-kampos North (Site 40), Palaikastro Lidia Northwest (Site 170A), Plakias Paligremnos (Site 136), Atsipades Korakias (Site 137), and Katelionas Xykefalo.

Now I want to return to the problems of the origin and character of the Cretan EB I “revolution” in social organization, technology, territorial ownership and interregional contacts – to mention only those aspects of life which can be best traced in archaeological material. There were probably other changes, for example in religion, in understanding of the afterlife concept, and in memo-rialising of the past, but these are more difficult to reconstruct, at least in the early phase of the EBA. Many of the problems of the emergence of the EB I Cretan society were addressed in a book by K. Branigan, which is however, over 40 years old.31 Renfrew’s Emergence of Civilization, though devoted mostly to the presentation of the Aegean in the third millennium BC, touched upon some problems of the Neolithic–Early Bronze Age transition.32 This book also reflected, however, the state of research of the 1960s, and the new edition has not offered updated evidence.33 Recently an excellent overview of the beginning of the Bronze Age in Crete was presented by Ph. Betancourt,34 who focused his arguments on “the revolution” in pottery production which forms one of the most visible markers of the transition between the FN and EBA. Other phenomena, observed in respect of settlement organization and settlement changes, fully support Betancourt’s view of the EM I, as a period of rapid social complexity development. New evidence from a number of EM I sites, but also from some FN II settlements, strongly indicates that the processes which built the foundation of complex societies in Crete were well under way long before EBA II. It is, therefore, rather surpris-ing to see recently published a strong, but entirely unjustified, criticism of Betancourt’s reconstruc-tion by J. Cherry.35 It seems that Cherry’s interpretation of the problem still relies on the very poor evidence available to Renfrew in the 1960s and early 1970s, and ignores the fact that it has been enriched enormously since then. As a result of new discoveries, the whole issue of the emergence of complex societies in the Aegean requires serious revision, as Renfrew has remarked in the con-nection of the surprising discovery of the fortified settlement of Strofilas on Andros.36 The evidence presented in this book shows that Strofilas is not an isolated phenomenon, but rather evidence of a broader process of changes, which brought the Aegean closer to the level of social development and technology known from the regions farther to the east. The evidence presented in this book

30 Blackman and Branigan 1977, 67; Blackman and Braningan 1982, 21 and 43.31 Branigan 1970.32 Renfrew 1972.33 Renfrew 2011.34 Betancourt 2008.35 Cherry 2012.36 Renfrew 2008, 3.




concerns the FN II period almost exclusively, but the foundations for the EBA social and political development were laid already during that time. Cherry, in his criticism of Betancourt, therefore, is wrong writing that “settlement sites [in EM I] were tiny – barely hamlets”.37 FN II Palaikastro Kastri, Maridathi, Xerokampos Kastri, Vainia Stavromenos, Vasiliki Kefala, Damnoni Stavros, and Palaio-chora Nerovolakoi – to mention only a few sites described in this book – were all large settlements, inhabited by several tens of families, and they certainly did not struggle “to ensure demographic survival”. Some of these large FN II settlements developed during the earliest phase of the EM I period into major regional centres, with populations well above 200 souls. There is no doubt that the development of the settlement hierarchy and social complexity observed in the earliest EM I period, had their roots in the last centuries of the fourth millennium BC.

The reconstruction of EM I settlement expansion in the past has often been based on a wrong assumption that the gazetteer of Neolithic sites (and in particular the FN settlements) represented in any way a true picture of settlement distribution. Misunderstanding of dramatic difference between FN I and FN II periods in terms of site numbers and sizes led to wrong conclusions about a gradual growth of population and expansion from the largest LN centres into sparsely-populated peripheral areas in the EM I period. S. Manning, for example, interpreted almost fifteen hundred years of history as a single phase that according to him represented dispersal and “filling of the arable landscape between the key LN areas”.38 I cannot agree, therefore with Cherry’s suggestion that “our understanding of Minoan state formation demands a far more subtle and complex model than that one Betancourt seems to be suggesting”.39 On the contrary, we do not need new “subtle models”, but more new evidence. First and foremost we should not ignore the existing and pub-lished evidence, not only that of a spectacular character as at Strofilas, but also that of other similar settlements.

My deep interest in the Cretan Final Neolithic people started on 5 October 1993, the day when I unexpectedly found their traces on a small rocky ledge hanging high on a cliff of the Cha Gorge, at Katalimata. This Neolithic deposit, consisting of ashy soil, burnished dark pottery, animal bones, and bone and stone tools, illustrated a sad piece of one family’s, or one clan’s life, preserved under-neath five later phases, all related to the most dramatic moments in Cretan history. There was no doubt that these Neolithic “refugees” moved to such an inaccessible place under a very real, and not imagined threat. Katalimata’s inaccessible location was much more convincing evidence for disturbances in FN Crete than the earlier recorded sites in the Mesara40 and in western Crete.41 I started, therefore, to look for the explanation of this extraordinary fear on the part of Katalimata’s FN inhabitants. Soon, I realized that there were at least two parts of the story – an early one, repre-sented by the Katalimata “refugees”, who were indigenous Neolithic Cretans with deep roots in the LN culture of the island, and another later one, represented by newcomers bringing a number of new material culture features and building new settlement patterns which survived for many gen-erations during the Bronze Age. The field research quickly confirmed the scenario proposed a long time ago by Lucia Vagnetti about two phases of the Final Neolithic: an early and late one42 – the pattern that has been missed in the analysis of most intensive survey results in Crete. The search for the people on the both sides of the story lasted for twenty years and led me far beyond Crete. The results of this work are presented in this book. Some readers may be disappointed saying that the above proposed hypotheses are not convincing and more work needs to be done to prove them through excavations and more intensive field work in the east Aegean islands, and especially on

37 Cherry 2012.38 Manning 1994, 232.39 Cherry 2012.40 Vagnetti 1973a; Vagnetti 1973b.41 Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 57–59.42 Vagnetti and Belli, 1978, 161.




the Anatolian coast. That is true, but I only hope that all the new evidence published here, and the discussion based on this, will stimulate others to do this work.



Documents

Final Neolithic Crete and the Southeast Aegean () || Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks